joan biskupic, please standby. we want to bring in former is acting director under president obama, john sandberg. john, thank you so much for being with us right off the bat. your reaction to this decision by the supreme court to allow sb4 sb4 to be enforced via boris. actually, i'm quite stunned by this flies in the face of longstanding precedent when other states have tried to enact their own border enforcement schemes. the court has shut that down, obviously, most notably arizona. but look, i think the dissenting justices got this one, right? this is to so a lot of chaos at the border, frankly at a time, but we don't need chaos how texas is going to implement this is going to be challenging at best, how they're going to quickly mess. their practices and sums of arresting perceived undocumented immigrants with the federal, the border patrol's efforts and overall, federal government's efforts will be very difficult to implement. and i think the final thing here i'm going to expect some copycat legislation to be p

cnn's paula reid and joan biskupic standing by for this big moment paula, can you lay out what is at stake this morning for everyone? >> so of course, the supreme court does not tell us which opinions they are going to release, but we widely expected today, but they will release their decision on former president trump's ballot eligibility. that's a little surprising that they've spentir locations tomorrow for super tuesday, including the state of colorado. if you remember how this case played out at the supreme court several weeks ago, former president trump's lawyer did pretty well. not only did the law really appear to be on his side, but the justices on bull's-eye sides of the aisle appeared willing to agree with a lot of what he was saying. so it's widely expected that he will likely win in this case, but it's not clear exactly how why it's taken so long, how difficult it might have been for chief justice john roberts to build some sort of consensus behind the scenes. and we'll be looking to see how narrow throw that consensus is also expected that once this is a decided that wh

i want to bring in our senior supreme court analyst, joan biskupic, joan reading between the lines on the questioning, but that we all heard today, how do you expect the justices eventually to handle this? >> sure. wolf and it really was a compelling set of arguments at the court they were asking really piercing questions to all three of the electors who lawyers who took the lectern, one of them was a woman by the name of erin hawley who happens to be a very active anti-abortion advocate, who's married to josh hawley. he was there in the courtroom as four other officials, including the attorney general of new york, letitia james just shows the stakes of this for the state's, for people on both sides because wolf, as you know, this is the first big abortion case since the justices in 2022 reversed roe v. wade. and in that time, just to point up the stakes more women have relied on medication, abortion to end their pregnancies. and the other issue here is the fda's authority to use its own scientific review and expertise to decide what jugs should be approved and when you cut right thro

let's go straight to cnn senior supreme court analyst joan biskupic. joan, what is the us supreme court ruling? >> it's saying it needs more time. it has now indefinitely stayed the lower court at a lower court decision that would have let this law take effect. it is blocking this law from taking effect while lower court proceedings play out, the supreme in court, jake had set a 05:00 p.m. deadline for itself to act on this. as you know, this is a controversial law known as sba, that would allow texas officials to arrest migrants at the border and essentially let texas takeover immigration policy. it's been challenged by the biden administration and immigrant rights groups litigation is playing out, but the issue is can this law take effect? supreme court said it was going to decide that by 05:00 p.m. today and now it said it's going to indefinitely continue you to postpone the effect of the law. there might be something coming later in the week or later we're just not sure what the court is doing. justice samuel alito had set that deadline but cleared

cnn supreme court analyst joan biskupic is joining us. joan, and we understand now that the three liberal justices dissented. what can you tell us? >> sure major news from the supreme court allowing this controversial texas law to take effect immediately that would allow texas state officials are not federal officials who normally are in charge of immigration to arrest and detain migrants who cross the border at your ride. the majority did not explain its reasoning seen briana, but three dissenting justices did explain why they don't think this law should take effect. justices sonia sotomayor and ketanji brown jackson said this today, the court invites further chaos and crisis and immigration enforcement. texas passed a law that directly regulates the entry and removal of noncitizens and explicitly instructs its state courts to disregard any ongoing federal immigration proceedings. the law appends federal state balance of power that has existed for over a century. and then the third liberal joining in was justice elena kagan, who said the

cnn senior supreme court analyst joan biskupic joins me now. joan, great to have you unusual announcement from the us supreme court teeing this up. why do we expect this as the ballot decision? >> now, all signs pick pointed that direction, jim, first of all, at close of business on friday, there was no announcement up. you know, even though we're kind of overdue for this decision that was argued on february 8. and the announcement of potential ruling came today around 01:00 p.m. eastern which suggests that whatever it is they were working fast and furious to finish it up. and i think it's to finish it up before super tuesday because colorado is one of the multiple states that are holding primaries, its culmination of its primary is on tuesday along with as i said, several others. so i think there was an incentive to finish it by tuesday. so we got this late word rarely do they go down to the wire with an opinion announcement. it if it was any other case, they just hold it over to another another day. so i think that's a pretty clear sign and th

cnn senior supreme court court analyst, joan biskupic is leading us off this morning. joan supreme court. this morning will not decide whether or not donald trump engaged in insurrection. but the ruling potentially this morning, as i understand, it, will set a historic standard not only in this presidential race, but in elections to come, correct? >> correct. and it's great to see you, sara, first, let me tell our audience why we think it's coming today. the supreme court, it closed its business on friday with no notice of any opinion, but then suddenly yesterday afternoon around one eastern time put up a notice saying that it would likely issue an opinion which indicates that they were racing to finish something and the something has to be a decision that likely would affect what would happen on super tuesday because colorado, the state that's in dispute here, actually finishes its the primary voting tomorrow along with as you say, more than a dozen states. so this is the opinion that we expect and to your question about insurrection, the 14th amendment's section three

nonetheless, joan biskupic, thank you so much. thank you. >> a warning for american democracy. former president trump painting a disturbing picture. if he does not win this election plus russian leader the vladimir putin, confirms prisoner exchange talks that could have freed alexey navalny. they were underway at the time of the jailed opposition can leader's death, what he says happened, and starting today, getting birth control is as simple as clicking add to cart united states of scandal with jake tapper. sunday at nine on cnn. >> meet the jennifer's gen x and y and gen z. each planning their future for the chase mobile app gen x is planning a summer portugal with some help from jpmorgan wealth plan. >> let's go whiskers. >> gen y is working with the banker to budget for her birthday >> you only turn 30 once. >> and gen z her credits go, then, hello, new apartment three jens getting a head with chase solutions that grow with you when bank for now, for later chase, make more of what's yours >> my plaque psoriasis was so bad. i couldn't get my hair done. my psoriasis was all m

joan biskupic. thank you very, very much. there's more news. we're following. secretary of state antony blinken getting ready to head to israel drill on friday as the israeli prime minister benjamin attacking you prepares to speak virtually two republican lawmakers here in washington. later this afternoon, we have details just ahead >> are you all-star teams returned for a waterfront redemption showdown? >> like in a brain but only one will make us flash. >> i think >> we nailed it, rocked the long haul new monday night at nine on hgtv where you have chronic kidney disease there are places you'd like to be like here and here not so much here far seeker, reduces the risk of kidney failure, which can lead to dialysis our sega can cause serious side effects, including ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration, urinary tract, or genital yeast infections, and low blood blood sugar. a rare life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking far sega and call your dr. right away. if you have symptoms of this infection and allerg

like this, it involves donald trump >> yeah, interesting language there from amy coney barrett joan biskupic, laura coates. thank you both so much. >> let's get some reaction from trump world. we heard the former president speaking just moments ago, cnn's kristen holmes has been tracking the latest from west palm beach, florida. kristen trump took a victory lap here saying that he respects the supreme court. i'm wondering how this is it's being received by the trump campaign. and how they think the court might rule on the question of immunity >> yeah, of course, donald trump respects the supreme court when he wins and 89 to nothing vote, which is essentially what he said. he went on a radio show which we didn't play, where he said he was honored to be a nine to nothing vote that it was a big win for america. it we'll see what happens if he doesn't win in the supreme court. >> now thank point out here as we talked to the campaign one that claim of immunity, donald trump himself is obsessed with this idea. he has become incredibly fixated on it. he talks but it all the time as we have played s

john, again, as of this moment, the law is in effect, joan biskupic, thanks so much for being with us. appreciate >> the former president trump says rejecting his sweeping immunity claim would be the end of the presidency. as we know it. so what will the supreme court's speaking of make of his argument for absolute immunity now, new reports this morning of a possible privacy breach of princess kate's medical records at the hospital where she was treated in january and with it a new warning from the uk health minister today and it could be the world most expensive drug. >> how 4 >> treatment may be helping children with a rare disorder live longer we're here to. >> get your side of the story. >> why do we keep ending up here? you can't write this stuff. united states scandal with jake tapper sunday at nine tend to riva support your brain health. >> very janet. hey eddie know appraiser, franck, frank bred. how are you? >> fred fuel up to seven brain health indicators, including your memory, joined the new riva brain health challenge. >> why choose asleep numbers, smart bad? >> to keep m

elliot williams is here as cnn's joan biskupic laura, i'm going to go to you out there at the court. what is your main takeaway now that you've had some time to read and digest what's your main takeaway from how this all was written? how all went down, particularly the per curiam at the beginning, and then the concurring opinions by the three liberals well, dana, we had an inkling of what was going to come because we had that over to our oral argument. they were very skeptical about the idea of one state being able to make a determination that would impact the entire nation. >> and >> lo and behold, that was the very conclusion. if you had disarm up with it all in one way, it'd be two things, patchwork and stay in your lame. they did not want to have a patchwork of state deciding different ways to remove someone from a ballot in one state, it might be secretary of state's office. another might be a criminal prosecution. they didn't want to have an inconsistent result, but also staying in your lane, you know that the states are in charge of elections, but here they said, yes, that's t

joan biskupic is on set with this as well as dana bash and elie honig joan, your sense of this? >> well, first of all, it's 90 to reverse the colorado supreme court. so former president donald trump will remain on the ballot and other state ballots. but the justices actually split on how far to go the majority decision written as a per curiam likely by the chief justice of the united states, because it's unsigned gives much more authority to congress about when someone should be disqualified and justices barrett, justice, and then the three liberals writes separately. and what's key here, it is, justices i'm listening to two different things. excuse me. a second >> seem to two different conversations, but i'll listen to our its first >> okay. this is an important part that even though they came out and gave us something unanimous, that's very useful in the political scheme, especially for tomorrow, for super tuesday. it shows how divided this for important still is because the three liberals broke off and said, you majority are going too far in terms of how you would dictate the

cnn senior supreme court analyst, joan biskupic, and cnn senior legal analyst, elie honig and joan, let me start with you. 20 pages. if you read single-space, a lot of details in this document, i know you've gone through it. all of us have gone through it no mention in this document whether trump actually qualifies as an insurrectionist what did you make of that? well, that's right. and i think we knew that the handwriting was really on the wall when we heard the oral arguments in february that the justices did not want to go to, whether donald trump actually engaged in insurrection is the lower colorado court's head had. but they were ready to get at least get to what i think was a relatively easy bottom line. it was easy bottom line. the colorado supreme court was an outlier states just are not empowered to enforce section three of the 14th amendment. but i think the language you're talking about in terms of any kind of insurrection, just look at what the three liberal suppose road as they talked about how the majority had gone too far, they agreed, of course, with the majority that d

. >> what we were talking to joan biskupic last hour, who is also watching this very closely. and she talked about the signs that the court is going to not allow colorado's ruling to stand. but let's just take a look at what happens if that doesn't country. in other words, if they uphold what colorado did was was to say that donald trump does not is not allowed to be on the ballot because he was part of an insurrection. what might that mean for the election? >> yeah, i think a fair amount of confusion and that's not weighing in one way or the other on it, but you would simply have a patchwork of procedures and practices across the country as to number one, who can decide whether someone engaged in insurrection. and more importantly, who can decide for the country whether a candidate but beyond the ballot or not. and i think reading the tea leaves why they're issuing this ruling today prior to super tuesday is to clear up any ambiguity as the legitimate city of legitimacy of each state's ballot people have already voted in colorado under a cloud of not knowing whether one of th

very significant joan biskupic, appreciate it very much want to get back to our top story right? this morning's pivotal ruling in georgia's election subversion case against donald trump and others. fulton county district attorney fani willis we'll be allowed to lead georgia election subversion case against the former president united states, but only if the special prosecutor, nathan wade, is off the team. that was the ruling from judge scott mcafee, just a little while ago. we're joined now by tamara halloran she's a senior reporter for the atlanta journal constitution. she's been doing a lot of extensive reporting on this story from day one. tamara, thank you very much for joining us. do you expect we'll hear from fani willis today are or what happens next in the case? >> yeah. we're waiting to hear really from all the sides in this fight. we have yet to hear from the da's office although they did take their time to respond to the initial motion seeking to disqualify her, and it took them several weeks to come out with an official response. we are expecting to hear from them so

cnn is joan biskupic, who is actually inside the courtroom during the arguments and made it back here. and time. remember again, cnn's nia-malika henderson and cnn's kristen holmes. thanks for joining me. >> it's impressive. i'll quickly you got just minutes ago. >> it's so great to be able to tell you what it's like what was like. well, you can really feel the weight of the moment. just think of how important medication abortion is nationwide especially in the two years since the dobbs are willing, when the justices reversed roe v. wade, this is the most common way that women who want to end a pregnancy are able to end a pregnancy. so there's a lot of stake here and i just wanted to tell you that whenever there's a big argument like this you get lots of people coming there as a field trip and for different reasons. and i'll just mention a couple of people and monitor. this is just write up your straight. senator josh hawley, was there because his wife, erin holly represents the challengers here, saying that physicians who are anti-abortion are harmed by these fda provisions and they'

response would be we are still on a relatively fast track here when it comes to the immunity case, joan biskupic, our expert, wrote that this morning for cnn normally a supreme court case would take even more time. there are differences between the watergate scenario in this scenario, the watergate scenario, the time pressure there was richard nixon already won his second term. he wasn't up for an election. there was no looming election. the concern was we have a criminal investigation of the guy in the white house here. the concern is really more political concern is while we have a looming election, and how might this trial impact the election? and i think there's an argument that it is appropriate for prosecutors and courts to consider the former situation. but once you get into the game of judges and prosecutors thinking about whether there's an election day and how should we play this? you're starting to turn those jobs that we don't want to be political into things that are political trump has a very varied take of the supreme court, or less obviously, he put three justices on there, but h